Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-18


lie selling places. I have discussed this
matter with myself prayerfully, and it is
nv firm conviction that the aggregate
loss to humanity exceeds the gain. The
lazy does not prohibit, and the man who
knowingly violates law does his moral
nature as much if not more hurt than ne
does by drinking in public. No man can
escape the consequences to himself of
willful, deliberate wrong, or of Willingly
violating q law. He may be unconscious
of this self-fnficted injury, but he does
not escape it. Hypocrisy has stood as
much in the way of the church as infdel-
ity, and is often but screen to the latter
even in amen corners and l cannot but
anticipate degradation of character
as an ultimate result, in people who de-
liberately violate law aud Justify them
selves 10 so doing. A people educated to
discrimination may not become bTutalized,
but they are likely to become seething
mass of corruption in time; and, mind
you, during all this period of transforms
ton they are in possession of that which
the law pretended to deprive them Of
whisky. 1t does appear to me that q
law which invites violation, teaches
hypocrisy, and that in the years to come
Jul OCSNShNdALS Will nave BCSu llduS-
planted from the civilization Of america
and the English aristocracy."
"But it is only those who sell and
drink that violate the law, and the great
mass of the people are taught temper
ance."
"Be not deceived. The entire COM
munity Of every city in every prohibit
or To - ho "a 81
law; they cOndoUe it in their
silence, and the leaven of hypocrisy will
work into the whole lump. Religion can
not grow strong where hypocrisy
thriVes"
A well known physician in answer to
the plain question, care you for or
against" said: 81 will vote the anti
prohibition ticket and do all l can against
the measure. l oppose. it solely as s
Democrat. 1t is all very pretty to say,
this is a non-partisan question, but
would like to know whether a party
called Prohibition, by their own label,
did not hold q state convention last year
and nominate full state ticket in opposi-
ton to the Democratic nominees, and did
not thousands of these same Prohibition
lists vote that ticket and try to defeat the
Democratic party! What party was it
opposed the election of Roger @. Mills,
simply because he was not q Prohibition
lists; and what party paid the expenses
of Waco lawyer to stump the district
against Mills ? l consider the Prohibi-
ttOnists strictly party in opposition to
Democracy, and knowing this, 1 shall
fight them to the bitter end"
a man Of business, thinker and
"True Blue" being approached on the
subject, said: 81 am against prohibition;
the enactment of 100 such laws will not
keep liquor from the people. Why, do
you know that hundreds of men alI
through the portions of Texas bordering
on Mexico make their own whisky at small
cost? They simply dig up the roots of
the maguey, pound them to pulp, add q
little water and let fermentation take
place, when they have mescal, which is
most powerful intOXiCant. No use to IOp
off the revenue and then not stop drink
ing. Yes, am against prohibition"
d young business man on his way
home, over which a beautiful wife had
been called to preside, was stopped and
forced to express himself:
81 don't know" said he. "At first
there would be depression. The large
number of men engaged in the liquor
trade would have to quit, of course, and
the houses would be vacated. But after
a year, say, the houses would be OcCu-
pied by men in other lines, and | think in
the end business would be improved"
chow imprOyed?"
"Money spent for whisky profits the
general community very little. 1t is
kept moving among few, while the same
money otherwise expended would soon
show itself to the general advantage.
The first year would be hard, but after
ward the Improvement would be perma-
nent and steady"
A druggist was solicited for his views
and he quickly responded: 81 am opposed
to it. The Twentieth Legislature was q
nice body of Lawmakers. They refused
to pass a pharmacy bill for the protec-
ton of the lives and health of the people,
and then submitted this amendment.
Suppose it is carried. Saloons will 90
out and drug stores will come in. Whisky
will be their chief stock in trade but they
will keep drugs to conceal their main
business. 1t is pity when the Tween
tieth Legislature are sick, that the pre-
scriptions for them cannot be COM
pounded by druggists who will go into
the business if this amendment passes"
Spying a welI-known Prohibitionist at
leisure, THE GAZETTE said: "You seem
to have a little time; tell me how prOhi-
billion prohi bits"
at does not in one sense, and it does
in another and it will co me near doing it
in all senses after awhile"
"Weli, howl"
cit doesn't prohibit drinking now, any
more than the prohibition of murder,
horse stealing, opium joints, gaming.
etc, prohibits; but it will prohibit as
much as they do. No law can be prohi-
bitOry in the fullest sense because human
isy is not angelic, but prohibItory laws
educate the popular mind to their OBJ
servance and each year there
is less violation. You hear
much about drinking in certain
cities of Maine, and l, for one, do not
doubt that men in Portland violate the
law prohibiting the sale of whisky just
as men in Portland violate the laws pro-
hibiting adultery, theft, murder, etc; but
this is the point: How much more Whis-
ky would be guzZ.ed, and how much more
evil would result from the guzzling if the
law didn't prohibit? And while you are
answering that question, tell me how
MORA oJ1ltorr